The Credo of the People of God is a profession of faith
made publicly by Pope Paul VI on June 30th, 1968. It has been of help to me in
recent months and I would like it to be better known. I will only give a very
brief introduction to it here; there is a longer one, very much worth reading,
at The Josias: https://thejosias.com/2018/06/26/paul-vi-credo-of-the-people-of-god/
(Credit goes to The Josias and the author P.J.
Smith for introducing me to the Credo. Thanks!)
I urge you to read
the whole Credo, before or after reading this. It is a source of consolation
and strength. It can be read at the link above, or on the Vatican
website here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html
A brief introduction
to the Credo
Pope Paul VI pronounced this creed in St Peter’s Square on
the feast of Sts Peter and Paul, at the conclusion of the Year of Faith of
1967–68, “surrounded by cardinals, bishops, religious, and laity.”[1]
His stated intention was to “confirm our brothers in the faith,”[2]
in accordance with Jesus Christ’s mandate to St Peter (Luke 22:32): But I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted,
confirm thy brethren. His particular concern, as stated in his homily
preceding the Credo, was to repeat “in substance, with some developments called
for by the spiritual condition our time, the creed of Nicea.”[3]
The ‘developments’ contained in the Credo are meant to make it “to a high
degree complete and explicit, in order that it may respond in a fitting way to
the need of light felt by so many faithful souls.”[4]
The need of light which Paul VI perceived was evidently
occasioned most of all by “the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters
with regard to the faith,” and “disturbance and perplexity in many faithful
souls.”[5]
“We see even Catholics
allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty.”[6]
In these circumstances, so familiar to Catholics who have been troubled indeed
with “disturbance and perplexity” by the apperance of change and novelty with
regard to the faith, Paul VI pronounced this Credo which can serve as a banner
for faithful Catholics. Again, read the whole thing.
A few highlights: errors
of ecclesiology
Each person will
perhaps find certain statements that resonate more than others, and address
errors or novelties which have given him or her particular perplexity. For
example, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, and
assumption into heaven are affirmed in para. 14–15; the Council of Trent’s teaching
on original sin in para. 16; the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice and the sacramental
rôle of the priest in para. 24; transubstantiation in para. 25 and the “very
sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate
Word whom they cannot see” in para. 26; purgatory and the bodily resurrection
in para. 28–29.
The sections of
the Credo which helped me the most, personally, are statements which reject
errors about the Church, i.e. errors of ecclesiology. These are some of the
errors which I thought, until recently, were contained in the documents of
Vatican II and post-conciliar magisterial teaching. As such, these errors have
caused me a great deal of trouble, to say the least. I received great
consolation from reading these passages in the Credo and seeing them explicitly
rejected.
In para. 19, on the Church, the Credo affirms that the
Church, “built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter,” is “the Mystical
Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical
organs.” It goes on to state that this Church founded by Jesus Christ “is
indefectibly one in faith, worship, and the bond of hierarchical communion.”[7]
In other words, it identifies the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church: “one
flock with one only shepherd.”[8]
It reaffirms that this Church is “necessary for salvation,” while also
affirming what Pius IX taught:
Those
who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His
Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavour to
do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in
a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.[9]
Two paragraphs are
especially outstanding: para. 20 and 22. Paragraph 20 rejects all attempts to
overthrow the infallibility of the pope or the necessity of belief in the
Church’s dogmas. It contains a synthesis of the teaching of the First and
Second Vatican Councils on the magisterium:
We
believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and
that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn
judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium (Vatican I, Dei filius,
c.3). We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he
teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful (Vatican I, Pastor
aeternus, c.4), and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it
exercises with him the supreme magisterium (Vatican II, Lumen gentium,
c.25).
Finally,
paragraph 22 rejects the heresy which proposes that the Church of Christ is broader
than the Catholic Church headed by the pope, and includes e.g. Protestant
bodies who are not part of this Catholic Church.[10]
Para. 22 is essentially a rewording of a notable section of the Second Vatican
Council’s document Lumen gentium, chapter 8 — the famous ‘subsists in’
chapter.[11]
The Credo is happily phrased so as to exclude some pernicious misunderstandings
of that chapter:
Recognizing
also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ, of numerous
elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to
Catholic unity (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 8), and believing in the
action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ
love of this unity (Lumen gentium, 15), we entertain the hope that the
Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will
one day be reunited in one flock and with one only shepherd.[12]
The wording of
this paragraph makes clear that non-Catholic Christian bodies are “outside the
organism (compaginem) of the Church of Christ,” the “one flock” with “one
shepherd,” by being not in full communion of the “one only Church,” which, this
paragraph makes clear, is to be identified simply with the Catholic Church
headed by the pope. A key word in this passage is the Latin compaginem (nom.
compago or compages), which in the Vatican’s English text is
translated ‘organism.’ I do not have the resources at hand to do a deep study
of precedents for the ecclesiastical use of that Latin word, but looking it up
in standard Latin dictionaries I find such meanings as ‘structure’ and ‘framework.’
In all, this paragraph does a great deal to reassure me by rejecting the
erroneous interpretation of Lumen gentium which would redefine the
Church of Christ to be something broader than the Catholic Church.
Conclusion: a personal
expression of gratitude
Of the human agents involved in leading me into the
Catholic Church, Pope Paul VI is one of the most significant. At the time when
I was trying to determine the truth of the Christian faith, and then evaluating
the claims of the Catholic Church, Paul VI’s teaching in Humanae vitae
stood out to me as a firm and clear witness to the truth about sexuality —
truth which I had by that time, with the help of God’s grace, been able to
reach largely through the light of natural reason and experience. Paul’s VI’s
witness strengthened the credibility of the Catholic Church in my eyes, when
compared with the tendency of Protestant groups to follow the world’s lead and
adopt a false and damaging outlook on sexuality. It seemed to me at the time
that the pope of Rome was just about the only authority figure on the world
stage who was still defending and teaching true wisdom — even merely human
wisdom — about sexuality.
With the Credo of the People of God, I now count Paul VI
also as one of the most significant human agents involved in preserving me within
the fold of the Catholic Church. Since being received into the Church, I have
had great difficulties — like many adult converts — understanding the current situation
in the Church, and orienting myself in relation to practical matters like parish
membership (based on geography or liturgical preference?) and choice of books
and catechisms (pre- or post-Vatican-II? Catechism of Pius X or John Paul II?).
This ultimately culminated in a crisis about theologico-ecclesial positions: sedevacantist?
SSPX? FSSP? or none of the above?
The essence of the dilemma has been stated succinctly in
this way: “Does the religion of Vatican II represent a substantial or
merely an accidental change of the Roman Catholic religion?”[13]
What became the heart of the problem, for me, was the impossibility of
regarding the ‘religion’ of Vatican II and the post-Vatican-II mainstream as
anything but a substantial change of what went before, i.e. of the Roman
Catholic religion.[14]
Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God has helped change
that. For I firmly believe and uphold that the ‘religion’ professed by Paul VI
in this Credo is the Roman Catholic religion. It is in evident
continuity with the doctrine of Vatican I, Trent, and, in short, with Catholic
and Apostolic Tradition. And at the same time the faith professed in this Credo
is also in substance the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
At this end of this post I have reached a conclusion
which surprises me, since I did not have it in mind when I set out. Paul VI is
one of my greatest benefactors in the faith. I hope that his Credo can be a help
to others as well. Indeed, I would like it to become a banner that faithful
Catholics can rally around.
Benedictus Deus sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.
[1] P.J. Smith, “Paul VI: Credo of the
People of God,” The Josias, 26 June 2018. https://thejosias.com/2018/06/26/paul-vi-credo-of-the-people-of-god/
[2] Paul VI, Solemni hac liturgia
(Credo of the People of God), 30 June 1968, para. 3. http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., para. 7.
[5] Ibid., para. 4.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., para. 21.
[8] Ibid., para. 22.
[9] Ibid., para. 23.
[10] “This heresy posits a “People of God”
and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and
broader than it — a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church
that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics
and schismatics).” Anthony Cekada, “Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism, and
Frankenchurch,” 2005. Link omitted.
[11] “This is the sole Church of Christ
which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, which
our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care ... This
Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists
in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the
bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification
and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts
belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic
unity.” Vatican II, Lumen gentium, c.8, quoted from The Companion to
the Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts Referred to in The
Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 769
(1), p. 315.
[12] Paul VI, Credo of the People of
God, para. 22.
[13] Donald Sanborn, “Video: The
Syllogism of Sedevacantism,” 21 Dec 2013. Link omitted. Let me state clearly that I respect the honesty,
clarity, and intellectual integrity of this argument while firmly rejecting its
conclusion. In my opinion, Sanborn’s arguments merit calm and logical refutation
— which I believe my own rejection of them is based on — but I am not myself capable
of presenting such a refutation in writing at present.
[14] Not discussed in this post is religious
liberty and Vatican II’s document Dignitatis humanae. This is commonly
cited by sedevacantists as the most overt and clear contradiction of previous
magisterial teaching. The issue has been very ably dealt with in an article
by Thomas Storck: “Catholics and religious liberty: What can we believe?” Homiletic
and Pastoral Review, Jan 1997, 49–56 (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dGhvbWFzc3RvcmNrLm9yZ3x3d3d8Z3g6NmNlZTdkNzIyN2ZhMzJhYw)
In my opinion, Storck’s interpretation of Dignitatis humanae in continuity with
previous teaching is completely successful. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to
Mr. Storck for this, which has also helped me very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment